I can still vividly recall my elementary Sunday school teacher teaching us a “kid-friendly” definition of sin:
Sin is anything you think, do, or say that makes God upset.
As a young child, this notion filled me with a sense of dread. What if I unintentionally said or did something that upset God? And for years this fear lingered because the reasons behind God’s displeasure seemed more or less… arbitrary.
Traditional Western Christianity usually defines sin somewhere along the lines of transgression against the divine will. But what does the divine will entail? Are certain actions arbitrarily placed on a naughty list? Levitical laws, such as those prohibiting the mixing of fabrics or trimming beards, can contribute to this perception of arbitrariness.
But to me, the idea that sin is arbitrary ultimately means that there is not such thing as the Good, which I reject. So, I propose a different perspective — a perspective that views sin as dehumanization. I hold the belief that sin does involve transgression against the divine will, but that God’s will is to redeem creation and restore true humanity, where every person bears the image of God.
For this reason, I propose that we can assess an act’s sinfulness by examining whether it humanizes or dehumanizes individuals.
Let’s consider examples: Acts of compassion, empathy, and justice affirm the dignity and worth of others, nurturing their humanity. In contrast, actions rooted in prejudice, discrimination, or oppression strip away the humanity of others, dehumanizing them.
Now, some people may prefer to view sin through the more “objective” lens of biblical commandments over the subjectivity of humanizing vs dehumanizing acts. However, I am confident that viewing sin through the lens of dehumanization brings us closer to the divine will, because we acknowledge the transformative power of our actions and our responsibility to foster the flourishing of all.
By embracing an understanding of sin as dehumanization, we embrace the ideals of justice, love, and the restoration of our shared humanity.
I always considered “sin” to be a measurement of guilt. Anything that can make someone feel guilty effectively becomes a sin in their eyes, regardless of who is actually committing the act. You can disseminate definitions of guilt and the supposed crimes that’d result in it, but that basically makes it memetic instead of objective or divinely ordained.
If I understand you correctly, I think I could get on board with your interpretation in the sense that this may be the method by which God has designed humans to gradually develop an understanding of sin, but I would differ in that I believe there is an objective morality towards which we’re aligning. If sin is truly memetic, then the Good either doesn’t exist or is inaccessible/unknowable, which is inconsistent with my understanding of God’s self-revealing nature.
Good is subjective/memetic as well. It exists, but it exists and starts within us rather than us reaching out to the divine for its definition. After all, what one considers a good act (for an example where those championing it feel absolutely morally justified, let’s say opposing abortions) someone else might consider evil (such as opposing all abortions, even the ones for those that won’t survive childbirth).
I like your take on sin. ‘Dehumanize’ hmm it seems to be the antithesis of love. At least that’s my take. And in a sense I would agree. But to me it goes further. It like a tear in an otherwise perfect fabric. A blemish if you will, a fault or a bug. Something that seemingly can’t be healed. And it doesn’t just go away. Like the possessed boy’s father in Mark 9 said, “I do believe. Help my unbelief.” A fault. And out of that cry for help because of the fault, God yields mercy, grace, and love.
I sometimes use the language that sin is an “eye problem” that leads to an “I problem.” The Bible often uses language that sin is a force or disease which affects and infects us. And yes, I believe that we’re only healed of this disease by the work of the Holy Spirit.
Yeah, I heard that one before. In my experience that’s only the beginning though.
“The Bible often uses language that sin is a force or disease which affects and infects us.”
I think this is more of personal interpretation of preachers who want to wax eloquent to their parishioners than it is in the Bible. But it’s a fair comparison. As any disease is akin to a fault. That’s why in computers malicious programs are called viruses. They replicate themselves and infect their host like a disease exploiting faults or bugs in the OS or hardware even.
For a different visual, sin is like pot holes in a road. Those creap up because of ice forms in the cracks in winter and break up the surrounding concrete or asphalt. And pot holes form. The problem is the upkeep. The environment, the world, is part of the cause but you can’t do anything about it. So to with the Christian. The world provides a fertile environment for sin but the Christian has to upkeep themselves.
And to me that one part of sin that has recently come to my attention, the role that the world plays in it. This world or universe is flawed. But we are in it. We’re asked to be holy before God in a sinful world that affect us. It’s not just about personal sin, which is indeed important and needs to be dealt with first. It’s also about personal upkeep and how you handle the sin around you that affects you day in and day out.
I actually quite like your conception of sin as being expressed in terms of humanizing and dehumanizing acts.
Additionally, I think it’s important to consider how sin is related to understanding. Human beings acquired original sin as a result of consuming the fruit of the tree of knowledge. This metaphor represents a philosophical principle; understanding the consequences of one’s actions naturally makes one responsible for said actions, assuming you believe in free will (I don’t, but for the sake of discussion we can move past that).
Thus, sin is a natural result of our increased understanding compared to other living creatures. Also, that leads me to question whether someone can sin without being aware they are sinning. This is a complicated question because the human mind is capable of extraordinary self-deception, but @justastranger’s identification of guilt as a marker of sin seems to fit in nicely with this conception.
Some traditions would argue that the concepts of original sin and total depravity necessitate that, as sinful people, everything we do, we do in sin, regardless of intention or knowledge.
For the most part, I reject that line of thinking. I think sin usually does involve some level of awareness. Again, I view sin primarily as the dehumanizing or objectifying of others. It’s viewing people not as other souls with inherent worth, but as a means of achieving your own desires. I think often, we are aware to some degree that we do this. But then, it could be argued that we may sometimes do this without realization.
Yeah, I agree, but it’s hard to know for sure. I guess the good part is that it’s not a critical issue, because we can still repent for sins that we are not aware of having committed. It’s not necessary to specify every single mistake in order to be forgiven, as long as one is genuinely repentant.
I suggest a different approach in some blog posts I worked through a couple years ago: https://saladeggs.blogspot.com/2021/06/reconstructing-christian-ethics-01.html
In short, I suggest sin is that part of you that drives you to self-destruction and destruction of others, and the actions flowing out of it. Discipleship is the process of becoming a non-destructive person.
